Today in a Nutshell

Coaches around the country were asked about their recruiting classes and their numbers.   Here is what a couple had to say about their numbers:

Things are hectic right now around here...hope to have the cup standings updated soon as well as a collection of comments from coaches around the country.  We hear Mark Ritch had some interesting things to say.

Filed under: Big 10, SEC 83 Comments

On the Clock


In a previous post, we responded to Alabama fans that were outraged by our March to 85 piece by giving them a homework assignment.  The assignment was for them to bring us a BCS school that needs to shed more than 6 scholarship commitments between now and August when the NCAA will required that all teams have their rosters down to 85 players.   It took a little bit of time, but we finally had a reader post a list of schools that he claims are over the limit and needs to shed players. 

Here's the list from the Alabama fan:

"You want other programs? Here ya go….

LSU currently has 91 players on scholarship (Need to cut 6)
Miami currently has 91 players on scholarship (Need to cut 6)
Texas A&M currently has 90 players on scholarship (Need to cut 5)
Washington currently has 88 players on scholarship (Need to cut 3)
Nebraska currently has 87 players on scholarship (Need to cut 2)

Texas was at 88 players on scholarship, had 2 transfer, and now needs to cut 1 more."

Okay, so where do we start?  First, let's get a table of the recruiting numbers for each of these schools in one place so we can easily look at them together here.  This is everything from 2002 - 2010; we'll narrow this down to the numbers we need for this investigation a little later in this post.

On The Clock

Teams Conf. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average
LSU SEC 26 28 26 13 26 26 26 24 29 224 24.89
Miami ACC 24 24 28 17 22 19 33 19 28 214 23.77
Texas A&M B12 23 24 28 25 23 18 24 28 23 216 24
Washington PAC10 21 27 23 13 22 27 26 19 31 209 23.22
Nebraska B12 21 19 20 32 22 27 28 20 21 210 23.33
Texas B12 28 18 20 15 25 24 20 20 22 192 21.33


Now, how do we figure out who went over the limit this year by accepting more signed letters of intent then they had room for given the number of scholarship commitments they had on National Signing day?  The math is really simple, but finding the actual roster numbers for the previous year online can be difficult, which is why we are asking you, the fans of these schools, to participate and help us determine if your team went over the limit.  We could do it on our own if all of these teams has a sweet online depth chart application like Notre Dame has available here; make sure you click on Roster Chart when you open the link (side note - if we had any sense at all we would build an application like this to house roster data for all 64 BCS schools and then charge a fee to access it - but as it is we barely have enough time to keep up with blog and our real lives). 

Regardless, we have the number of players signed to each recruiting class (see table above), therefore, all we need now is to know exactly how many players were on scholarship on National Signing Day.  Typically, this is the previous year's total number of scholarship players (which will vary from school to school because not all schools are always at 85 every year) minus graduating seniors with no eligibility left and minus juniors who have declared for the NFL draft by the deadline on January 15th.  We refer to this number as the "recruiting budget."

Until we can get those numbers, let's just look at how many players each school has signed over the last 5 years.  We're going to subtotal 2007 - 2009 and then add 2010 to that number and call it the subtotal for 2007-2010.  We are also going to show you the 2006 numbers, which would represent the 5th year senior classes for these schools.  It is very likely that each of these schools will have a few 5th year guys on their roster.

On The Clock - Numbers for 2006 - 2010

Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 (07-09) 2010 (07-10)
LSU SEC 26 26 26 24 76 29 105
Miami ACC 22 19 33 19 71 28 99
Texas A&M B12 23 18 24 28 70 23 93
Washington PAC10 22 27 26 19 72 31 103
Nebraska B12 22 27 28 20 75 21 96
Texas B12 25 24 20 20 64 22 86

For comparisons sake, now let's look at a few teams that we have investigated in the past and that we know are not over the limit.

Not On The Clock

Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 (07-09) 2010 (07-10)
Georgia SEC 28 23 24 20 67 19 86
Vanderbilt SEC 25 14 21 18 53 24 77
USC PAC10 27 18 19 18 55 20 75
Stanford PAC10 18 19 17 22 58 23 81
Penn State B10 24 21 14 27 62 20 82
Ohio State B10 20 15 20 25 60 18 78
Northwestern B10 17 19 20 18 57 17 74
Notre Dame Ind. 28 18 23 18 59 23 82

And then finally, here is Alabama.  Still above those on the clock and way, way above those not on the clock.


Teams Conf. 2006 2007 2008 2009 (07-09) 2010 (07-10)
Alabama SEC 23 25 32 27 84 29 113

(Important: It should be noted that the 2007-2010 numbers do not include the 5th year guys from 2006.  Therefore, schools that are under 85 in this column are either short-handed or they have a number of 5th year guys; schools that are way over 85 either have no 5th year guys or they have a few and the numbers are even worse.)

Before everyone gets all up in arms, there is more to this than just these numbers and this is where it gets really time consuming in trying to investigate oversigning.  From 2006 to 2010 a lot of things happen to the rosters, some things are legitimate and some things are not.  The numbers above are the numbers signed; we still need to know who left the team and who still remains from the 2006 class, which will give us the total number of scholarship players at the end of the 2009 season.  From there we can subtract the graduating seniors and early entries into the NFL.  That will give us our recruiting budget for the 2010 class. 

We're not asking that you guys hunt down the back story to every single transfer (although that would be nice), all we really need is the total scholarship commitments at National Signing Day, which is what we described above.  Once we have those numbers we will add the number for the 2010 class and see if it is over 85.

So there it is, we have provided a nice starting point for investing the schools Alabama fans have claimed are also guilty of oversigning players.  Now we just need your help to finish up the investigation.  Please post anything you have here and we'll continue to discuss.

Filed under: Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, SEC 78 Comments

But Alabama was on Probation

We continue to hear that Alabama was on probation and scholarship reductions in 2002-2003 and that is why their numbers are so high. 


We'll keep this brief and to the point.  If Alabama's numbers are so high because they were on scholarship reductions, then what were the schools listed underneath them on, double secret scholarship reductions?  We searched the Internet and couldn't find where the NCAA dropped the hammer on any of these schools for recruiting violations.  If you guys find something we missed let us know.

Alabama Comparison

Teams Conf. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average
Alabama SEC 19 19 29 32 23 25 32 27 29 235 26.11
Notre Dame Ind. 18 21 16 15 28 18 23 18 23 180 20.00
Georgia Tech ACC 15 21 24 19 16 20 20 21 21 177 19.66
Wake Forest ACC 20 23 18 19 15 20 17 23 19 174 19.33
Stanford PAC10 16 26 12 17 18 19 17 22 23 170 18.89
Northwestern B10 22 22 15 20 17 19 20 18 17 170 18.89

Filed under: Rants No Comments

The Curious Case of Auburn and Northwestern

In case you missed it, Auburn and Northwestern played each other in the Outback Bowl last season.  And although there were 10 turnovers in the game, it was one of the more exciting and fun to watch games in the bowl season last year.


It just so happens that Auburn and Northwestern have something else in common.  They appear to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of recruiting numbers, with Auburn having signed 253 players since 2002 and Northwestern 170.

According to the link in our previous post, Auburn seems to be playing catch-up with their roster depth due to the recruiting practices of Tommy Tuberville.  Although one has to wonder, with an average of 28 recruits a year, how in the world could you ever have a problem with your roster?  For right now, it's irrelevant.  The bottom line is that Northwestern, numbers-wise, was in the same boat as Auburn if you buy into the argument that although Auburn signed a bunch of players they were still short-handed when they played Northwestern because none of them made it into school or were able to stay in school.  

From 2005 - 2009 Auburn signed 134 players; Northwestern signed 94.  That's a difference of 40 players. 

So let's say all 40 of those "extra" players didn't make it into school at Auburn and all the players Northwestern signed stayed in school.  That puts Auburn and Northwestern on level footing in terms of numbers. 

Now let's look at what the two schools/coaches did in the 2010 recruiting class.  Northwestern signed 17 players, Auburn signed 32.

Why is there such a drastic difference between the way these two programs operate?  One reason is that Northwestern operates according to the principles and philosophies of the Big 10 Conference while Auburn does so according to the principles and philosophies of the SEC.  Another theory is that Auburn is trying to keep up with the Alabama's, Florida's, and the LSU's, all of which are loaded with talent and seem to sign a lot more players than the teams Northwestern is trying to keep up with (Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin).

Again, the numbers are very interesting.  Where would Northwestern be if they were able to bring in 32 players this year, back count a hand full to the previous class, and take a full class of 25 guys?  We'll never know because it will never happen.

The most important question in all of this is, where did all those players go who were one time Auburn players/recruits?  What are their stories?  Have they gone on to be successful, productive members of society or are they just drifting around somewhere?

Filed under: Big 10, SEC No Comments